denominations, who were taking the lead in attempts to purge the church from the sin of slaveholding. Take an example or two. The Associate Synod had a rule prohibiting its people from hearing aught but the sermons of its own ministers. To listen to a sermon from any one else, was to incur the censures of the church; and if the offender manifested no sorrow for his sin, he was cast out until brought to repentance and reformation. The Reformed Presbyterian Church had a different rule, but it operated with equal efficiency in keeping its people from worshiping with those of other religious bodies. Its members were not censured, like the Associate Synod's people, for “occasional hearing," but were required to meet in "Society," on their silent Sabbaths, and always to be present when their own minister preached. The rules of both these denominations were carried out, at the period under consideration, with a great degree of strictness, and tended to foster and intensify the prejudices of their people against all other denominations. The Associate Reformed Church was more liberal in its rules, and allowed its people to exercise their own judgments as to listening to sermons from other ministers than their own. The editor, from whom we have quoted, was a minister in this church; but while he was liberal in church discipline, he was unwilling to trust the people with a free discussion of the slavery question. To have permitted this in his periodical, he tells us, might have left the minds of his readers in "equipoise," and led them to reject the proposed reform in the discipline of the church. But his fault, and that of his associates, as we have said, was that of the age in which they acted. Men of education had not all learned to reason on the inductive system, but indulged in conjectures after the manner of the wise men of olden times. They were not careful to note all the facts and principles involved in the questions considered, but, indulging much in speculation, they ran into hasty generalizations, like tyroes in science, and, consequently, fell into egregious errors. In this fact is to be found the source of nearly all the conflicting theories in relation to the negro race. At best, all that had then been done for the colored people was mere experiment, and results, such as we have now, were unknown. It is not surprising, there

fore, that what was then held as orthodox, should now be scouted as fanatical.

The aim of the writers for the Christian Intelligencer, in undertaking the agitation of the question of slavery, in connection with ecclesiastical legislation, can now be understood. They found public sentiment endorsing the doctrine of the probable lawfulness of slavery, and only condemning its abuses. To accomplish their object, they must change this public sentiment; and this they proposed to do, by proving the immorality of slavery itself, separate and apart from its abuses. This they expected to effect, by depicting its horrors, showing its contrariety to the Divine law, and thus proving its great moral turpitude. When this should be accomplished, and the practice of slavery proved to be a most heinous sin, the Church would be easily persuaded that she must no longer tolerate the system. This point gained, it was believed that the influence of the Church, expressed through her judicial acts, and thereby enforced upon her people, could control civil legislation and thus secure the emancipation of the slaves. *

This, then, is the scheme they proposed; and we may now proceed to show how it was carried out. To depict the horrors and show the moral turpitude of slavery were the first steps to be taken. The world had unanimously pronounced the slave trade a crime of the deepest dye. To show the moral turpitude of slaveholding, the editor thus classifies it with the slave trade:

"The Africans were stolen from their country; no man will do himself any credit by denying it: and that the actual holder of property which is known to be stolen, is as criminal as the thief, is both logic and law." †

Again the editor says:

"The principle of slavery is unrighteous-this is its condemnation. The practice can not be spared, and so regulated as to make it on the

* It will be seen, by reference to Chapter VII., that a few years later, the Associate Church attempted to carry out this policy, by interdicting freedom of opinion in her members in relation to voting.

↑ Christian Intelligencer, Hamilton, Ohio, June, 1829, page 184.

whole a blessing to any part of the human family-more than any other sinful practice." *

From the editor, we turn to one of his assistants, who undertakes to show the horrible character of American slavery, as compared with all other systems which ever had an existence, He comes to the following conclusions:

"The slavery which existed in the Roman Empire in the Apostles' time, was by no means so debasing, hopeless, and oppressive, as negro slavery in our country." "No one can escape the conclusion, that slavery in modern times exists in its mildest form in countries where the Roman Catholic religion is the established religion, and where the government is despotic or purely monarchical, as in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies — that it becomes more ferocious and oppressive in Protestant countries, where the government is a mixed monarchy, as in the British colonies-and that it is most debasing of all in countries, where the religion is purely Protestant, and the government free and republican, as our own." †

This wholesale denunciation of American slavery, as the most ferocious, oppressive, and degrading system that ever existed, ‡ and this unqualified condemnation of his own government, as sanctioning cruelties unheard of in the history of the world, may have been necessary to maintain the positions assumed in the anti-slavery programme; but it was all based upon the sheerest conjecture as to Roman slavery, and was wholly destitute of any support from existing facts, so far as concerned American slavery as compared with that of the Portuguese, Spanish and British slave colonies. The reader will find these assertions fully sustained, by the opinions and facts elsewhere stated in this work. In the farther prosecution of the efforts to show that American slavery was contrary to the Divine law, and thus to influence Church legislation, it was necessary to refer to what the Apostles the founders of the Church had said and done in reference to Roman slavery. Here, however, was complete silence.

* Christian Intelligencer, Hamilton, Ohio, February, 1829, page 64. Ibid., August, 1829, page 230.

The writer, in his discussions, refers to slavery, generally, as well as to that of Rome.

They found precepts to regulate the relation, but not a word of condemnation. This silence proved an exceedingly embarrassing difficulty. But it had to be met, and one of the assistant editors makes the attempt to dispose of it as follows:

"Now, considering all these things, is it not, on the supposition that the Apostles did tolerate slavery, most unfair to reason from what the Apostles, in their circumstances, did, to what we, in our circumstances, should do, in regard to the toleration of this acknowledged evil? May not much more be expected of us, and may we not attempt much more in its abolition? And now let the reader take into the account not only our more favorable civil relations, but also the superior knowledge of the age and nation, and the fact that in many important respects, the slavery which our opponents wish us, amidst all the circumstances of the times, to tolerate from Apostolic example, is far more hopeless and debasing than that which, they say, the Apostles tolerated." *

Again, he says:

"I defy the world to prove that slavery was tolerated by the Apostles, and that it is in harmony with the spirit of the Christian religion." +

And, again:

"Slavery is contrary to the general principles of the Word of God, and to the spirit of the religion of the meek and lowly Jesus, our compassionate Redeemer. As might be expected of such a system, it gets no support from the Apostles. There is no evidence that they tolerated, in the Church, the slavery which existed in the Roman Empire; and, even if they did, there is evidence, that the slavery of the Romans, bad as it was, did not possess many of the most cruel, degrading, and hopeless properties of negro slavery, with which we have to do." ‡

But what does all this amount to? The writer says, that even supposing the Apostles did tolerate Roman slavery, that is no reason why we should tolerate American slavery - the latter, in

* Christian Intelligencer, Hamilton, Ohio, August, 1829, page 242.

Ibid., August, 1829, page 229.

Ibid., September, 1829, page 266.

his opinion, being so much the more unrighteous of the two. But laying aside his hypothetical case, he becomes more bold, and defies the world to prove that slavery was tolerated by the Apostles. Then, again, as if doubtful of this point, he comes back to the first supposition, and avers, that even if Roman slavery was tolerated by them, there is no evidence that it was as bad as our slavery. Here we are still upon the old platform-that the Church is only required to deal with the abuses of slavery. If Roman slavery had been as bad as American slavery, then, according to this writer, the Apostles could not have remained silent, but must have spoken out in its condemnation.

A step beyond this had to be taken, therefore, so that something more convincing than hypothesis and assertion might be afforded. Another assistant editor, coming to the rescue, thus attempts to meet the difficulty:

"Again it is said, slavery was practiced in the visible church while the Apostles were yet living; and that instead of testifying against slavery, they put it under regulation, giving directions to masters and servants; which fact, it is thought, gives us a warrant to tolerate it now. . . . . . I deny that they taught the lawfulness of such slavery as this or that they tolerated such an evil without testifying against it. They could not do every thing at once, although they were inspired men. I think any person who will take a view of the history of God's Church throughout the former dispensation must see, that idolatry and other abominations were practiced in the church while she had inspired teachers: reader, look into the writings of the prophets, and see if this were not the case. Why did not the inspired men keep out all visible immorality? Yea, there were inspired men who practiced polygamy. Now, if it be no reflection upon these inspired men to purge out certain evils which they did not keep out, neither is it any reflection upon the Apostles to endeavor to purge out what, according to some, they did not purge out."*

Here, again, is a denial that Roman slavery was as bad as ours, or that the Apostles tolerated it, without testifying against it. And, as an apology for their seeming neglect, in not making it a prominent object of discipline, as they did idolatry, he supposes

* Christian Intelligencer, Hamilton, Ohio, March, 1830, page 65.